Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Romney stayed longer at Bain

Posted on: July 12, 2012 - 5:29am

Alice1234

Posts: 5

Joined: 2012-07-03

Offline

Romney stayed longer at Bain

Romney stayed longer at BainGovernment documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Contradictions concerning the length of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital add to the uncertainty and questions about his finances. Bain is the primary source of Romney’s wealth, which is estimated to be more than $25o million. But how his wealth has been invested, especially in a variety of Bain partnerships and other investment vehicles, remains difficult to decipher because of a lack of transparency.

Bottom line is Romney cost THOUSANDS of people their jobs and benefits whether he outsourced jobs or not! As far as the unemployment rate goes his practices show he was good at RAISING it and making millions for Bain investors by gutting companies and ruining lives!

Obama isn't perfect but he's better than this guy! Plus you know deep down inside Obama is more like us! After all his mom was a secular humanist!

So? Who cares? He stepped down as an active manager and delegated day to day responsibilities to others. Yeah, he still owned it, yeah he still had a significant financial stake. He claims he was no longer making decisions and given that he was becoming increasingly active publicly doing other things either he is telling the truth or he is a closet workaholic *gasp*. Either way, who cares?

And Romney created more jobs than either of you would if you lived 1000 years. Seriously, the guy is a schmuck for a million reasons and this is where you decide to attack?!? I don't get it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Nick Hanauer billionaire BILLIONAIRE! Says the dead and tired mantra of "Job creators" is false. He has said that no business owner will hire another person unless DEMAND dictates the need, so it is not the business owner who creates jobs, DEMAND DOES. You spend so much fucking time pissing on those below you and wont even listen to a BILLIONAIRE!

We, the middle class and working poor are the job creators. When we have more means we put more demand into the economy and when we demand more then, AND ONLY THEN does that dictate a new hire. That is not just a poor person like me saying that THAT IS A BILLIONAIRE I AGREE WITH.

And Romney made his living gutting companies which outweighed the minority of jobs he "created". He is a vulture and a con artist. And the one right thing he did in his state he is now pretending the very same thing Obama is doing is now magically wrong.

Seriously Beyond, this is not an economy where you can sit there and say "poor me". It isn't going to fucking work. As long as money has power people will abuse their position without oversight, the great depression and this current great recession are a result of money corrupting the open market and politics.

You cannot continue to explode the pay gap, explode the cost of living and make labor the first thing you cut to save money. It may make for short term gains for the business owner, but it comes at the cost of gutting the middle class and making them and the poor even more poor. When you fucking realize this is a long term issue and if it continues will screw even you over.

WE don't want you to be poor Beyond, we are not against wealth. But I am really sick of your attitude that people like me hate the open market and I am sick of your total denial that you really act like only people with money should have any say about our government,

All I have been trying to tell you is that money runs all aspects of life, unfortunately, but it does, a political power of any label, needs funds to sell it's message. Religion needs money to sell itself, and business needs money to make and sell it's products.

Absolute power and abuse of power and monopolies are what create the mess we are in now and that mess was caused by the abuse of big money. Money and the sale of Oil by Iran is what keeps their theocracy in place. MONEY is what keeps Chinese communism in absolute power by sale of cheap crap to the rest of the world.

Our open market is NOT THE PROBLEM, the problem is the growing monopoly of a plutocracy in more control of our political system by big money.

NICK HANAUER, look him up, since you love rich people, or is it you only love selfish rich people? It seems this billionaire knows that he isn't the only class that matters. If more uber rich were like him, we never would have gotten into this mess.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Nick Hanauer billionaire BILLIONAIRE! Says the dead and tired mantra of "Job creators" is false. He has said that no business owner will hire another person unless DEMAND dictates the need, so it is not the business owner who creates jobs, DEMAND DOES. You spend so much fucking time pissing on those below you and wont even listen to a BILLIONAIRE!

We, the middle class and working poor are the job creators. When we have more means we put more demand into the economy and when we demand more then, AND ONLY THEN does that dictate a new hire. That is not just a poor person like me saying that THAT IS A BILLIONAIRE I AGREE WITH.

And Romney made his living gutting companies which outweighed the minority of jobs he "created". He is a vulture and a con artist. And the one right thing he did in his state he is now pretending the very same thing Obama is doing is now magically wrong.

Seriously Beyond, this is not an economy where you can sit there and say "poor me". It isn't going to fucking work. As long as money has power people will abuse their position without oversight, the great depression and this current great recession are a result of money corrupting the open market and politics.

Nick Hanauer billionaire BILLIONAIRE! Says the dead and tired mantra of "Job creators" is false. He has said that no business owner will hire another person unless DEMAND dictates the need, so it is not the business owner who creates jobs, DEMAND DOES. You spend so much fucking time pissing on those below you and wont even listen to a BILLIONAIRE!

We, the middle class and working poor are the job creators. When we have more means we put more demand into the economy and when we demand more then, AND ONLY THEN does that dictate a new hire. That is not just a poor person like me saying that THAT IS A BILLIONAIRE I AGREE WITH.

And Romney made his living gutting companies which outweighed the minority of jobs he "created". He is a vulture and a con artist. And the one right thing he did in his state he is now pretending the very same thing Obama is doing is now magically wrong.

Seriously Beyond, this is not an economy where you can sit there and say "poor me". It isn't going to fucking work. As long as money has power people will abuse their position without oversight, the great depression and this current great recession are a result of money corrupting the open market and politics.

AMEN!!

Thank you. It just frustrates me that Beyond's thinking is so short term and selfish and he is too damned ignorant to see long term how his mentality will hurt, even him. And I am sick of his "You want to rob me" mentality. I am sick of the attitude that "I did it all myself". Fine, to that mentality I say, move to a deserted island all by yourself with no other human and then try to do the same thing.

I am sick of this false claim that I am jealous of wealth of hate all wealth, when the only thing I hate is the ABUSE that has made things worse. He still has yet to explain to me why a BILLIONAIRE agrees with me. And again, if the uber rich were like him, the mess we are in now wouldn't have happened. A good economy has to come with those in power taking into account the conditions of the other two classes. That is not socialism or communism. That is just fucking common sense. Saying that the pay inequity is too big compared to the cost of living, is not saying inequity should never exist.

AND his idea of "less government" I don't flat out reject. I only reject it CURRENTLY because it cannot work under the current mindset. I would trust Nick because I think he would do the right thing and if more people though like him at the top, it could create the conditions where less government was needed.

I think all these social problems both the left and right bitch about and the lack of jobs BOTH rightfully bitch about would go away if there was more thought put into humans. I think Nick's thinking is a rich person's thinking that will HELP.

I think Obamas policies will cost us short term, but at the same time it will give economic relief to the people who need it the most, but rich people don't need it and it is laughable RIGHT NOW for those at the top to even act like they have nothing.

I really do like you Beyond, but damn man, you have got to be joking when you say "poor me" at this moment in time. Spend some time looking at your house, your car/s, your living conditions. You are fucking lucky.

Even Betty White who is no poor person, recognizes she got lucky. Your position is not ALL WORK or all luck, but any point in your life, or even a local economic bust in your community outside your control, COULD affect you.

I DONT WANT YOU TO BE POOR BEYOND! Just suggesting to you what Nick says and think of it that way, instead of "you're on your own".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Nick Hanauer billionaire BILLIONAIRE! Says the dead and tired mantra of "Job creators" is false. He has said that no business owner will hire another person unless DEMAND dictates the need, so it is not the business owner who creates jobs, DEMAND DOES. You spend so much fucking time pissing on those below you and wont even listen to a BILLIONAIRE!

Actually I agree with the statement 100%. Demand creates job opportunities, what business owners do is organize production in a way that meets demand and often that means ceasing production in areas where there is no longer demand in favor of moving resources (both material and human) to areas with a demand that needs to be satisfied.

Brian37 wrote:

We, the middle class and working poor are the job creators. When we have more means we put more demand into the economy and when we demand more then, AND ONLY THEN does that dictate a new hire. That is not just a poor person like me saying that THAT IS A BILLIONAIRE I AGREE WITH.

This is where you are wrong. You don't "put" demand into the economy, demand exists because people want things and naturally occurs wherever you have people who want to live a more comfortable life.

Brian37 wrote:

And Romney made his living gutting companies which outweighed the minority of jobs he "created". He is a vulture and a con artist. And the one right thing he did in his state he is now pretending the very same thing Obama is doing is now magically wrong.

*sigh* I am going to make a whole post on this topic because you leftists are flat out ignorant.

Brian37 wrote:

WE don't want you to be poor Beyond, we are not against wealth. But I am really sick of your attitude that people like me hate the open market and I am sick of your total denial that you really act like only people with money should have any say about our government,

Obviously you do hate the open market because "vulture capitalists" (of which Romney was not) are an essential part of making an open market work. I am about to eat dinner but I will explain why vulture capitalists, just like vultures in nature, are an important and vital part of the economy.

Brian37 wrote:

Our open market is NOT THE PROBLEM, the problem is the growing monopoly of a plutocracy in more control of our political system by big money.

Was Bain a monopoly? Is there any "vulture capitalist" that is a monopoly?

Brian37 wrote:

NICK HANAUER, look him up, since you love rich people, or is it you only love selfish rich people? It seems this billionaire knows that he isn't the only class that matters. If more uber rich were like him, we never would have gotten into this mess.

I only trust selfish people because I know exactly what they want, anyone who purports to not be selfish is generally looking to screw you. I am suspicious of anyone if their motives are not readily apparent because I do not believe that anyone cares about me more than I do, nor that anyone cares about themselves less than they care about me with a very very small exception for extremely close friends. The scam artist always begins their scam by pretending to be on your side.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

This is where you are wrong. You don't "put" demand into the economy, demand exists because people want things and naturally occurs wherever you have people who want to live a more comfortable life

This is one of your greatest misunderstandings about supply and demand economics. The middle class and the lower class are a majority a dozen thousand times over. $5 extra dollars in the hands of everyone is worth millions more to the economy than a billion in the hands of a few thousand people. If the middle and lower classes have an extra hundred dollars to spend in a month, then an incredible amount of demand is created, literally. If they have little or no resources, then they can't create demand, which inevitably deflates the economy entire.

This is where you are wrong. You don't "put" demand into the economy, demand exists because people want things and naturally occurs wherever you have people who want to live a more comfortable life

This is one of your greatest misunderstandings about supply and demand economics. The middle class and the lower class are a majority a dozen thousand times over. $5 extra dollars in the hands of everyone is worth millions more to the economy than a billion in the hands of a few thousand people. If the middle and lower classes have an extra hundred dollars to spend in a month, then an incredible amount of demand is created, literally. If they have little or no resources, then they can't create demand, which inevitably deflates the economy entire.

The theory that led to the Bush idea of stimulus checks being mailed out to everyone in the amount of a six hundred dollars. Did it lead to a big resurgence in demand? Nope. Did it fix our economy? Nope. Did it create new jobs? Nope. Shortly after the checks were issued the economy continued its slide and then the housing bubble burst and we know how that worked out. The US government has been trying to artificially stimulate demand under this theory for decades, lowering interest rates, redistributing wealth. At best it works extremely short term, at worst it leads to overproduction in areas where true demand does not exist resulting in a devastating crash.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

A one-time check might allow people to catch up a bit on bills or have a nice night out, but it won't have any effect on the economy at large. I'm talking about a continuous extra amount of funding, which only higher wages or higher taxes can pay for.

Ok vultures. Vultures are ugly ass birds most well known for their propensity to eat dead animals. I would hope that it doesn't take a particularly long time to figure out what vital role to bird plays in nature, along with all the other carrion eaters. If nothing ate bodies they would sit around for an extremely long time while they rotted which leaves nasty odors as well as greatly increases the risks of spreading a variety of disease. Vultures evolved to take advantage of a food source that most other large animals can't or won't consume and work diligently along America's roadways as our janitors. There is nothing pretty about the bird or what they eat, but the role they play in the ecosystem is vital.

While meant as a derogatory term, I believe that "vulture capitalism" is actually a very descriptive and accurate way to describe some companies. I don't believe Bain Capital falls under the definition in any way but I don't care to argue that. For the purposes of this discussion lets assume that the worst said about Bain is 100% true. Namely, that Bain purchased companies with the intent of laying off all the workers and profiting by selling all the assets of the company. There are companies that their express purpose is to do exactly that, they purchase failing companies, disassemble them and sell the pieces for a healthy profit.

The first thing to note is that the companies being purchased are failing, or at the very least are struggling. Companies die, they die for a multitude of reasons ranging from poor leadership to superior competition to a loss of demand for their product. As Brian pointed out, demand creates jobs, demand determines where jobs are needed and where jobs are no longer needed. Not every job is needed forever, in fact it might be more accurate to say that no job will be needed forever. As technology changes, as fads change entire industries come and go.

Why do they purchase companies that are failing/struggling? Because they are cheaper. You are generally not going to be able to purchase a company for less than its value in assets if it is turning a good profit. Every once in a great while you might have a chance to purchase a company well below value because the person who owns it is clueless, for example suppose the person who owns it is a heir who knows nothing of the business and no desire to run it. That person might sell it for several million less than its worth out of ignorance. Rare, but it does happen because valuing a business is a very complex and inexact task. But finding those businesses is the equivalent of finding a widower with a '66 Corvette sitting in the garage in good condition and is willing to sell it for $1000 just to get rid of the junk. It could happen, but planning your livelihood around finding such deals simply isn't realistic.

For the most part, people who run businesses have a general idea of what they are worth just like most people have a rough idea of how much their house is worth. The knowledgeable financier might be able to gain a small advantage when negotiating through their more intricate knowledge of business valuation but isn't going to be able to completely screw the business owner. Business owners who are making a good profit are unlikely to sell their business for significantly less than it is worth (and IME when asked tend to offer numbers a bit higher than their business is actually worth, just like people with houses) So they generally focus on businesses that are legitimately underpriced because they are risky and are currently losing money or making very little profit.

Now, I would hope that it is obvious to you that a business that is not making a profit will "die", it will go out of business as soon as its lines of credit dry up and/or the business owner is no longer able/willing to reach into their personal funds to prolong it. Now I'm not going to bother to discuss companies that can be turned into profitable enterprises I am simply going to focus on those where no such attempt is made. Cases where the purchaser has determined there is no way to make the business profitable. In these cases it isn't so much a question of IF the employees of the company are going to lose their jobs, it is a question of WHEN. If the vulture capitalist never purchases the company, the owner goes bankrupt and has to go out of business, 100% of the employees lose their jobs and the owner attempts to salvage whatever value they can assuming anything is left after their assets are forced to be sold by courts and their creditors are paid off.

What the vulture capitalist does is purchase the company and begin to disassemble it in an orderly fashion. They consolidate the areas where the company still has cash flow and reduce the costs of operations as much as possible. Then they begin to sell the company piecemeal selling off the least profitable parts first. The vulture capitalist sells everything that can be sold for profit. Depending on the size of the company this process could happen within a year, or it could take several years before the final pink slips are issued and the company closes for good. Generally the remaining assets are those that are being used to secure debt such as land or buildings, at this point the company goes into bankruptcy where a settlement will be arrived at with the creditors to remove the liens or the property is sold by court order to pay towards the creditor. The company is gone, and all those workers are out of jobs, the vulture capitalist walks away with a six to eight figure profit and buys another failing company. Sad right?

But where did all those assets go? The buildings? The equipment? Vehicles? Provisions? They were not wiped from existence. They were sold to people who apparently had plans to use them (otherwise why would the buy it?). Everything that vulture capitalist sold is being used by someone else, perhaps in a different industry, perhaps in the same, to produce goods to sell to consumers. If it is being used to produce goods with more demand the company using those items will be profitable and will be putting it to better use than the previous owner. I thought leftists were big fans of recycling, what else is it? It is taking something that is no longer needed, stripping it down to its basic parts and selling them to be used for something it is needed for.

Ok, but obviously the business owner is being screwed right? I mean, if the vulture capitalist can make such a profit by stripping everything down the business owner could have done it themselves right? Well maybe, but maybe not. Do you believe that you could do a better job selling your house than an experienced real estate agent? It is possible and sometimes owners do so quite effectively themselves. However, it can be time consuming and if the company is losing money every month the owner might not have that option from a practical standpoint. Getting the lump sum from the vulture capitalist might make more sense for their personal finances. Also, companies that do this specialize. They have the contacts to know where to sell stuff quickly that must be sold quickly and where to sell stuff at the highest price when time isn't an issue. As such the vulture capitalist can squeeze far more value out of the companies assets than most owner/operators could do on their own.

Now I'm not saying that the business owner never gets ripped off. Anytime you are selling something there is a risk that someone is going to lowball you on the price. While some might say it is unethical to lowball a price like that, I am willing to bet that most people jump on the chance when they are the beneficiaries. For example, suppose you drive past a garage sale and see something that you know is worth $200 and there is a sign saying $40 on it. Now you KNOW it is worth around $200, and you know you could easily sell it for that, what would you do? Jump out and buy it or go tell the person at the garage sale it is worth $200 and they should change the price? I'm willing to bet that if most of you answer honestly you are going to buy it and brag to all your friends about the wonder deal you found. Just goes to show that when you sell anything, (or for that matter buy anything) you really need to do your research if you want to avoid being ripped off. The other party has no incentive beyond simply being nice to inform you of the true value of the product. While many people are pretty decent, when dealing with anything of importance it is prudent to not count on them being decent and to pay your lawyer the cash to read the contract, even if you think the wording is straightforward. Anyone offended by you saying you need your lawyer to read the contract first is trying to screw you. I'm not condoning companies that intentionally set out to screw people, but just like murderers they do exist, like murderers they do not represent most companies. However, legal recourse is difficult, expensive, time consuming and sometimes impossible- so you are your first line of defense because like murderers, most of these scam artists can be avoided with a little knowledge and some common sense.

BUT THE EMPLOYEES they are obviously being screwed by both the owner and the vulture capitalist right? They are producing something that does not have enough demand in the market. In other words, they are producing something that is not needed. Firing people is not usually a pleasurable task (I say usually because the two times I was fired in my life I made it very easy and very pleasurable for my boss because I took the opportunity to say everything I ever wanted to say and was generally a complete smart ass. Much easier than firing someone who starts crying and asking "what am I going to do now?" Have some empathy for your boss, if you get fired tell him/her off and point out every annoying character flaw they have. Turn on your inner asshole so that by the time you leave they think "Finally, glad that jerk is gone&quot It is especially difficult if you actually know the people and work with them on a daily basis. Another reason why vulture capitalists can be more efficient as they are in a better position to make financial decisions that benefit the company without the emotional entanglements. Sometimes firing the sweet nice person before the jerk no one likes is the correct practical decision.

As I noted before, the company is failing- the very fact that the owner was willing to sell it for less than the cumilative total of its assets demonstrates that it is not likely to stay in business for long. Rather than simply showing up to work one day to find the door locked because rent wasn't paid, or having their paychecks bounce (that has actually happened to me when I was an employee) and out of a job suddenly, vulture capitalists usually shut a company down in an orderly manner. Sometimes, some employees might be fired right away but usually it takes at least a couple weeks for the new company to decide who goes first. This gives time for the employees to prepare for the worst, start looking for new jobs, reduce expenses etc. Which is better for the employee? To pretend that everything is just fine until everything collapses? Or to provide warning?

Also, in practice, most vulture capitalist funds are not solely vulture capitalist (indeed, most such funds will make an honest attempt to turn the company around. Not because they give a shit about the employees, but because selling a profitable company makes a much larger return than selling the pieces of a dead company) Often they are related to a variety of other corporations in the same industry. If is not uncommon for choice employees (as well as choice equipment) to be offered positions with other companies within the corporation or at least the opportunity to apply for them with the preference of being an internal employee.

The alternative to vulture capitalism is that owners often don't sell much of the company as it goes out of business. The employees are still without jobs, and often there is a significant amount of goods and equipment that lays abandoned and will eventually find its way to a garbage dump. Perhaps some of it will be given away, but generally it is wasted as the owner has nothing to do with it. It just lays there on the side of the road as a dead carcass rotting away.

What else are we going to do? Use government money to subsidize failed companies and keep them running for the sake of the employees? It makes no sense to keep failures open, the failed for a reason and resources are much better put to use in a company that is not failing, a company that is providing items the market demands. That includes labor. Should the government have subsidized gramophone factories simply to prevent the people who worked in them from losing their jobs? What would we do with all those gramophones? That is simply absurd. Sad as it may be, sometimes people have to lose their jobs. Vulture capitalists, like vultures do not decide which companies die, they are not predators that kill companies, the are carrion eaters who disassemble and remove dead companies allowing new ones to thrive in their stead. It isn't always pretty and death is always sad (I have cried over failed companies, when you put so much of yourself into something and watch it whither away it is very emotional especially when you know it is your fault), but it would be a bad thing for companies to live forever, for the very same reason it would be a bad thing if people lived forever.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

A one-time check might allow people to catch up a bit on bills or have a nice night out, but it won't have any effect on the economy at large. I'm talking about a continuous extra amount of funding, which only higher wages or higher taxes can pay for. Rather than crash the economy, it's the only way to save it.

The United States is by far the most consumeristic society the planet has ever seen. We are often criticized for consuming too many of the worlds resources, virtually every person in America has far more material goods in their possession than they use... a lack of demand is not our problem and to argue that it is, is simply absurd. The best selling products in the US right now are tablets and smart phones- both are luxuries. (Although I recently broke down and bought an IPad, now I wonder how I ever lived without one. still not switching to a smart phone, I'm on the internet enough without it being on my phone too damn it and if you want to talk to me dial the phone, I'm not texting anything longer than six words- wow I sound like my father....)

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

This is where you are wrong. You don't "put" demand into the economy, demand exists because people want things and naturally occurs wherever you have people who want to live a more comfortable life

This is one of your greatest misunderstandings about supply and demand economics. The middle class and the lower class are a majority a dozen thousand times over. $5 extra dollars in the hands of everyone is worth millions more to the economy than a billion in the hands of a few thousand people. If the middle and lower classes have an extra hundred dollars to spend in a month, then an incredible amount of demand is created, literally. If they have little or no resources, then they can't create demand, which inevitably deflates the economy entire.

The problem is not lack of demand, it's lack of supply. Everyone wants to buy the things billionares can buy. The problem is the don't have anything to sell. There are pleanty of jobs for technical and health care fields. The problems is failed schools and too few people willing to get training or take these jobs.

There is a massive oversupply of people will poor job skills. So your solution is to reward these people with all kinds of free stuff. To encourage the behavior even further instead of fixing this problem.

So they got more money, so they just chase after scarce commodities like food, shelter and fuel driving the price of these up. There needs to be increase in productivity of the lower class to raise them up, an in demand job skill they can sell. Again this is the insane leftist economics of reward failure and punish success and then expect they economy to get better.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

If that were true, you wouldn't have some of the highest unemployment and homeless rates in the world.

Your middle class has been nearly extinguished, and your lower class is constantly desperate for basic needs items. 500 million cell phones and big screen tvs won't feed one person. The excess consumerism of the US has little to do with basic necessities, and everything to do with luxury. Luxury of the upper class, who makes way too much money and doesn't do anything with it. While even a fraction of the money the wealthy hoard would send waves of growth through the entire world if only your poor had access to it.

If that were true, you wouldn't have some of the highest unemployment and homeless rates in the world. Your middle class has been nearly extinguished, and your lower class is constantly desperate for basic needs items. 500 million cell phones and big screen tvs won't feed one person. The excess consumerism of the US has little to do with basic necessities, and everything to do with luxury. Luxury of the upper class, who makes way too much money and doesn't do anything with it. While even a fraction of the money the wealthy hoard would send waves of growth through the entire world if only your poor had access to it.

Have any evidence on that? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? Show me evidence of people starving in the US, show me evidence of a massive homeless problem. Show me evidence that a significant percentage of Americans are "desperate" for basic needs items.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

If that were true, you wouldn't have some of the highest unemployment and homeless rates in the world. Your middle class has been nearly extinguished, and your lower class is constantly desperate for basic needs items. 500 million cell phones and big screen tvs won't feed one person. The excess consumerism of the US has little to do with basic necessities, and everything to do with luxury. Luxury of the upper class, who makes way too much money and doesn't do anything with it. While even a fraction of the money the wealthy hoard would send waves of growth through the entire world if only your poor had access to it.

Have any evidence on that? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? Show me evidence of people starving in the US, show me evidence of a massive homeless problem. Show me evidence that a significant percentage of Americans are "desperate" for basic needs items.

"20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19)."

I'm currently living on not much more than 10,000 a year - I don't know how much longer I can stay off the streets myself.

A measly - by Romney's standards anyway - $300,000 would pay off all my bills and allow me to put off pulling Social Security until I am 65, allow me to stay in my house and off the streets, and keep me off of food stamps. Yeah, I know, it is all my fault my husband is disabled, all my fault I was laid off, all my fault I am over qualified, under qualified or just not quite right qualified in some fashion. I accept the blame for being a lazy, no good, liberal sucking at the public teat. <sigh>

Let's slice it, if you take $45,000,000 (+ / - a few cents), divide by 2 for one year's income = $22,500,000. Divide that by my measly $300,000 and you get 75 - Romney gets a share, so that is 74 not quite retired people who could be off the streets, off of food stamps and able to retire at a decent age.

Yeah, I'm assuming those people would all need as much as I do - some would need more, some less. But that is one man who could positively impact 74 other families for years.

If I were able to, I would improve my house, buy a newer car, and do a little shopping. How is that not a boost for the economy when multiplied by 74?

edit: why do I always find more errors even if I preview my post, after I post it?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Which when compared to the rest of the world does not rank us anywhere near "the highest" in fact it puts us significantly lower than Canada which has roughly 250=300k homeless and roughly 1/10 of our population. Not that either number is really that bad as it includes being homeless for a single night, so any guy who comes home and finds his shit on the curb and has to sleep in the car is "homeless" even if next week he rents an apartment. IOW, in 2009 I qualified as "homeless". The number of long term homeless is significantly smaller and due to issues that generally extend well beyond the economic.

cj wrote:

"20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19)."

Which only measures income, it does not factor in the value that they get in government programs, food stamps- welfare- unemployment- medicaid- and whatever else they might qualify for. They are not starving to death in the streets, and most of them still pay for things like tv, internet and other luxuries.

cj wrote:

I'm currently living on not much more than 10,000 a year - I don't know how much longer I can stay off the streets myself.

A measly - by Romney's standards anyway - $300,000 would pay off all my bills and allow me to put off pulling Social Security until I am 65, allow me to stay in my house and off the streets, and keep me off of food stamps. Yeah, I know, it is all my fault my husband is disabled, all my fault I was laid off, all my fault I am over qualified, under qualified or just not quite right qualified in some fashion. I accept the blame for being a lazy, no good, liberal sucking at the public teat. <sigh>

And yet you are not going to starve to death, you will most likely continue to have a computer and be on the internet and still consume a certain amount of luxuries. Perhaps not as many as you might like but a damn sight better than the majority of the world.

cj wrote:

If I were able to, I would improve my house, buy a newer car, and do a little shopping. How is that not a boost for the economy when multiplied by 74?

Prices are rising, we are experiencing inflation- inflation doesn't occur because of a lack of demand (although inflation reduces demand) inflation occurs because we are not creating enough. We don't need 74 people like you being handed $300,000 or whatever number, we need 74 people like you producing useful goods and services and earning that money. In order for that to happen we need to pursue policies that make it profitable for people to invest in starting new businesses. Thus far everything the government is doing makes investors uncomfortable with taking large risks while forcing us to save up large sums of money to pay for new mandates just to make sure we can keep our current investments protected. We should stimulate production, not demand. Demand will take care of itself because I'm sure as soon as you have a job you will improve your house, buy a newer car and do some shopping.

Edit:

And despite us spending the last 5 years doing exactly as Vastet recommends, using government to redistribute money, our poverty rate has gotten worse, our unemployment rate has stayed high and our economy has not improved. Obviously, using government to hand out money isn't working.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Have any evidence on that? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass?

Simple common sense. And 100k+ years of history.

As opposed to the unproven and ridiculous garbage you are spouting.

CJ provided some additional evidence, far more than you've done.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which when compared to the rest of the world does not rank us anywhere near "the highest" in fact it puts us significantly lower than Canada which has roughly 250=300k homeless and roughly 1/10 of our population.

Actually, you ARE still amongst the highest. Whether or not your rates are higher or lower than Canada is irrelevant, Canada takes after its own. The US does not. So lower employment rates don't hurt us nearly as much as they hurt you.

Which is all irrelevant to the fact that the few hoarding the wealth from the many is the cause of economic troubles today, and it won't get better until idiots like you accept reality.

Romney was CEO and Chairman of the board of Bain till 2002 as SEC documents show!

So eventhough he may not have had anything to do with the day to day operations he is still legally responsible for their actions since he was the CEO and Chairman!

Bain outsouced jobs to foreign nations after 1999 so that's why it matters!

There is a difference between being CEO and owner and being the person deciding which companies to invest money in. The filings at the SEC confirm that he was the former and not the latter. Of course, he can be criticized for the people he chose to take that role. But I'm back to my original question- who cares? And why would you care? And how does the Obama campaign think they are going to profit politically from this?

And no, if there was anything illegal done with any of the investment decisions (which I am not aware of anyone making accusations of that), Romney would not be legally responsible anymore than the CEO of Mcdonalds is legally responsible when someone sells pot through the drivethru- hence the purpose of the SEC filings.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Actually, you ARE still amongst the highest. Whether or not your rates are higher or lower than Canada is irrelevant, Canada takes after its own. The US does not. So lower employment rates don't hurt us nearly as much as they hurt you. Which is all irrelevant to the fact that the few hoarding the wealth from the many is the cause of economic troubles today, and it won't get better until idiots like you accept reality.

So why doesn't Canada share it's wealth with the rest of the world? Why are you all such greedy horders that only look out for yourselves? Why not have open borders and let the 3rd world in all the welfare benefits?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Actually, you ARE still amongst the highest. Whether or not your rates are higher or lower than Canada is irrelevant, Canada takes after its own. The US does not. So lower employment rates don't hurt us nearly as much as they hurt you. Which is all irrelevant to the fact that the few hoarding the wealth from the many is the cause of economic troubles today, and it won't get better until idiots like you accept reality.

So why doesn't Canada share it's wealth with the rest of the world? Why are you all such greedy horders that only look out for yourselves? Why not have open borders and let the 3rd world in all the welfare benefits?

So why doesn't the US share it's wealth with the rest of the world? Why are you all such greedy hoarders that can't even look out for yourselves? Why not have open borders and let the 3rd world in on all the welfare benefits?

Actually, you ARE still amongst the highest. Whether or not your rates are higher or lower than Canada is irrelevant, Canada takes after its own. The US does not. So lower employment rates don't hurt us nearly as much as they hurt you. Which is all irrelevant to the fact that the few hoarding the wealth from the many is the cause of economic troubles today, and it won't get better until idiots like you accept reality.

So why doesn't Canada share it's wealth with the rest of the world? Why are you all such greedy horders that only look out for yourselves? Why not have open borders and let the 3rd world in all the welfare benefits?

When your banking system began collapseing under Dubya Canadian banks [the only ones in North America with CASH] started buying up failing American banks and applying Canadian law; look around your neighborhood at the new banks; are they TD, TD Ameritrade, BMO, HSBC, RBC, CIBC, frankly any bank that has initials, They are Canadian, hells-bells even the small town in Maine I grew up in has a TD bank [Toronto Dominion] the Boston Celtics/Bruins play in the TD Center in beantown, and also meny other lesser known arenas around the U S of A. Canadian banks have done more to stabilize the American economy then your elected politicians.

Yet because he retained technical control of Bain Capital’s management and because his wealth remained heavily tied up with the firm, Mr. Romney’s name or signature appears on dozens of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between February 1999 and August 2001, when he finalized a retirement deal with the active Bain partners and transferred to them his shares of Bain’s management entity.

“Mitt’s name were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Edward W. Conard, a Bain partner at the time, said during an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday. “And it took several years for us to sort out how to put the management team in place.”

All told, Mr. Romney’s name appears on at least 142 such forms, some of which have been the subject of news coverage in recent days, fueling questions about whether Mr. Romney ever really left. One such form, posted last week by Talking Points Memo, lists Mr. Romney’s “principal occupation” as “managing director” of Bain Capital Investors VI Inc., a private equity fund.

Actually, you ARE still amongst the highest. Whether or not your rates are higher or lower than Canada is irrelevant, Canada takes after its own. The US does not. So lower employment rates don't hurt us nearly as much as they hurt you. Which is all irrelevant to the fact that the few hoarding the wealth from the many is the cause of economic troubles today, and it won't get better until idiots like you accept reality.

So why doesn't Canada share it's wealth with the rest of the world? Why are you all such greedy horders that only look out for yourselves? Why not have open borders and let the 3rd world in all the welfare benefits?

When your banking system began collapseing under Dubya Canadian banks [the only ones in North America with CASH] started buying up failing American banks and applying Canadian law; look around your neighborhood at the new banks; are they TD, TD Ameritrade, BMO, HSBC, RBC, CIBC, frankly any bank that has initials, They are Canadian, hells-bells even the small town in Maine I grew up in has a TD bank [Toronto Dominion] the Boston Celtics/Bruins play in the TD Center in beantown, and also meny other lesser known arenas around the U S of A. Canadian banks have done more to stabilize the American economy then your elected politicians.

Your welcome

Which makes one wonder why we bother with the politicians. Unfortunately, Canadian style banking laws would never be accepted here in the states because they would be construed as helping the 1% and harming the beloved 99%. Even after the blow up of the housing market politicians are still scrambling to push for laws and regulations that make it easier for people who can't afford homes to buy them and make it more difficult for the evil bankers to collect on debt.

For those who don't know, Canadian law allows banks to sue mortgage holders AFTER the house is foreclosed on for whatever the difference is between the loan and the amount the house sold for. There is no equivalent to the US's "Community Reinvestment Act", Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac that forces banks to makes loans to poor people or encourages them to issue sub-prime loans because in the US subprime loans are guaranteed by Fannie & Freddie, in Canada the bank is on the hook so they don't take the risk. This also leads to mortgage insurance being more common in Canada than the US.

Canada also allows much higher prepayment penalties on mortgages than the US, this discourages the constant refinancing we saw in the US before the crash.

Instead of creating more bank-friendly policy, the US government went the opposite direction with the Dodd-Frank Act, we still haven't taken any steps to dissolve Fannie and Freddie and the focus has been on preventing banks from "screwing" people in the foreclosure process rather than giving banks the tools to pursue people who are voluntarily not paying their upside down mortgage loans and making sure that those who have assets must pay their loans.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

All through the housing boom, we were told that it was unfair and racist that homes were too expensive for the working poor to afford. So the solution from the Fed and Dubya was government intervention in the market. Easy credit from the fed, government buying up mortgages, suing banks that did not loan enough to minorities, etc...

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

So why doesn't the US share it's wealth with the rest of the world? Why are you all such greedy hoarders that can't even look out for yourselves? Why not have open borders and let the 3rd world in on all the welfare benefits?

Nice dodge, but I'm not the one saying the problem is due to hording and those that have not sharing with those that don't. Apparently, only when it benefits you is sharing the wealth a good thing.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Not quite. Dodging is when someone makes a point and someone else ignores it. Since all you did was imply I'm somehow the king of Canada and insinuate that Canada should take over the world, there was nothing to dodge. I just threw your nonsense back in your face, with less errors.

EXC wrote:

but I'm not the one saying the problem is due to hording and those that have not sharing with those that don't. Apparently, only when it benefits you is sharing the wealth a good thing.

Yet because he retained technical control of Bain Capital’s management and because his wealth remained heavily tied up with the firm, Mr. Romney’s name or signature appears on dozens of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between February 1999 and August 2001, when he finalized a retirement deal with the active Bain partners and transferred to them his shares of Bain’s management entity.

“Mitt’s name were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Edward W. Conard, a Bain partner at the time, said during an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday. “And it took several years for us to sort out how to put the management team in place.”

All told, Mr. Romney’s name appears on at least 142 such forms, some of which have been the subject of news coverage in recent days, fueling questions about whether Mr. Romney ever really left. One such form, posted last week by Talking Points Memo, lists Mr. Romney’s “principal occupation” as “managing director” of Bain Capital Investors VI Inc., a private equity fund.

You simply have no idea what is involved with the process of transferring ownership of a multi-million dollar company nor any clue about how the SEC works. CEO status and ownership does not necessarily equal being actively involved in making investment decisions. He never denied owning the company until 2002, so once again I will ask why does it matter whether he was making the decisions or not? Although all of the evidence suggests that he was not making those decisions just like he claimed. Even IF he made every decision personally, so what?

Why does it matter whether he left the company in 1999 when he says he did and went on to work very publicly on other things, or if he was a closet workaholic actively running Bain Capital while also juggling everything else until he formally transferred the company in 2002? If he was doing both it is all the more impressive that he pulled off organizing a very successful olympics while still managing the day to day operations of a successful investment business. I fail to see how "ZOMG Romney worked harder and longer than he claimed" is in any way a negative against Romney. Explain to me why I should be outraged if all of the accusations were 100% true.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

but I'm not the one saying the problem is due to hording and those that have not sharing with those that don't. Apparently, only when it benefits you is sharing the wealth a good thing.

The master of the strawman: EXC

Do you have no memory? You just told us that the problem with the economy is that the poor aren't getting any free money to spend and create demand.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Yet because he retained technical control of Bain Capital’s management and because his wealth remained heavily tied up with the firm, Mr. Romney’s name or signature appears on dozens of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between February 1999 and August 2001, when he finalized a retirement deal with the active Bain partners and transferred to them his shares of Bain’s management entity.

“Mitt’s name were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Edward W. Conard, a Bain partner at the time, said during an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday. “And it took several years for us to sort out how to put the management team in place.”

All told, Mr. Romney’s name appears on at least 142 such forms, some of which have been the subject of news coverage in recent days, fueling questions about whether Mr. Romney ever really left. One such form, posted last week by Talking Points Memo, lists Mr. Romney’s “principal occupation” as “managing director” of Bain Capital Investors VI Inc., a private equity fund.

You simply have no idea what is involved with the process of transferring ownership of a multi-million dollar company nor any clue about how the SEC works. CEO status and ownership does not necessarily equal being actively involved in making investment decisions. He never denied owning the company until 2002, so once again I will ask why does it matter whether he was making the decisions or not? Although all of the evidence suggests that he was not making those decisions just like he claimed. Even IF he made every decision personally, so what?

Why does it matter whether he left the company in 1999 when he says he did and went on to work very publicly on other things, or if he was a closet workaholic actively running Bain Capital while also juggling everything else until he formally transferred the company in 2002? If he was doing both it is all the more impressive that he pulled off organizing a very successful olympics while still managing the day to day operations of a successful investment business. I fail to see how "ZOMG Romney worked harder and longer than he claimed" is in any way a negative against Romney. Explain to me why I should be outraged if all of the accusations were 100% true.

More crybaby crap. I cant build a car but I damned sure know that I don't have to build one to know it is a piece of fucking junk. And Mitt and his Wall Street mindset overlards fucked up this economy. And you want be to believe that a guy who has a Swiss bank account, and accounts Burmuda and the Caymans gives one shit about me?

There are plenty of rich people I WOULD trust, Mitt is not and never will be one of them. He is a lying sack of shit who has flopped on every fucking issue, and is even trying to run away from the heath care act Obama modeled after his.

Beyond seriously, you need to get off your fucking pedestal "I am important because I have money". No you are not, you are merely ONE person in a diverse society and people in the middle and the bottom find it sick for you to ask for any sort of sympathy after the shit we have gone through. And what kills me is that you are to damned dense to see that if we did it your way, long term that economic rape would eventually get to the point where it would affect even you.

I do not have to know how to build a car, to see when the driver (rethuglicans) wrapped the car around the tree, to know that the car is fucking totaled. Mitt is peddling the same fucking shit that got us in this mess in the first place. Been there, done that, no fucking way!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

If that were true, you wouldn't have some of the highest unemployment and homeless rates in the world. Your middle class has been nearly extinguished, and your lower class is constantly desperate for basic needs items. 500 million cell phones and big screen tvs won't feed one person. The excess consumerism of the US has little to do with basic necessities, and everything to do with luxury. Luxury of the upper class, who makes way too much money and doesn't do anything with it. While even a fraction of the money the wealthy hoard would send waves of growth through the entire world if only your poor had access to it.

Have any evidence on that? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? Show me evidence of people starving in the US, show me evidence of a massive homeless problem. Show me evidence that a significant percentage of Americans are "desperate" for basic needs items.

"20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19)."

I'm currently living on not much more than 10,000 a year - I don't know how much longer I can stay off the streets myself.

A measly - by Romney's standards anyway - $300,000 would pay off all my bills and allow me to put off pulling Social Security until I am 65, allow me to stay in my house and off the streets, and keep me off of food stamps. Yeah, I know, it is all my fault my husband is disabled, all my fault I was laid off, all my fault I am over qualified, under qualified or just not quite right qualified in some fashion. I accept the blame for being a lazy, no good, liberal sucking at the public teat. <sigh>

Let's slice it, if you take $45,000,000 (+ / - a few cents), divide by 2 for one year's income = $22,500,000. Divide that by my measly $300,000 and you get 75 - Romney gets a share, so that is 74 not quite retired people who could be off the streets, off of food stamps and able to retire at a decent age.

Yeah, I'm assuming those people would all need as much as I do - some would need more, some less. But that is one man who could positively impact 74 other families for years.

If I were able to, I would improve my house, buy a newer car, and do a little shopping. How is that not a boost for the economy when multiplied by 74?

edit: why do I always find more errors even if I preview my post, after I post it?

Now CJ, you should know better than to use numbers with Beyond, he cherry picks as well as any theist quoting the bible. And yes, it is all your fault, get a second job you old bitty!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

More crybaby crap. I cant build a car but I damned sure know that I don't have to build one to know it is a piece of fucking junk. And Mitt and his Wall Street mindset overlards fucked up this economy. And you want be to believe that a guy who has a Swiss bank account, and accounts Burmuda and the Caymans gives one shit about me?

No I don't. The beauty of capitalism is that Mitt improved your life even though he doesn't give a shit about you. In his pursuit of growing rich he invested in and grew many companies that you probably benefit from on a regular basis. Companies like AMC, Burger King, Dominos, Sealy, Staples, Toys R Us and The Weather Channel. He didn't invest in any of them because he gave a shit about you, he did it for personal profit. But I guarantee that at some point you have been a customer of a company that Bain invested in.

Brian37 wrote:

There are plenty of rich people I WOULD trust, Mitt is not and never will be one of them. He is a lying sack of shit who has flopped on every fucking issue, and is even trying to run away from the heath care act Obama modeled after his.

I agree with you 100% here. Romney is a big government left leaning republican and is desperately trying to hide it. The only thing I wonder is why you would trust any politician or any rich person. The only thing I trust about anyone is that they will most likely pursue their own self interest so it is good when their self interest aligns with mine. Which is why my main point in the first reply was "who cares", there are a ton of policy issues to attack Romney on where he blatantly lied and contradicted himself. Whether or not he lied about when he left Bain by 3 years is irrelevant. If you really want to attack Bain he has a 15 year history there even without the last three years to attack (although I still think that is politically a loser).

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond seriously, you need to get off your fucking pedestal "I am important because I have money". No you are not, you are merely ONE person in a diverse society and people in the middle and the bottom find it sick for you to ask for any sort of sympathy after the shit we have gone through. And what kills me is that you are to damned dense to see that if we did it your way, long term that economic rape would eventually get to the point where it would affect even you.

Where did I ever say I was important? I'm not the one who expects anyone to give me anything because I exist. I don't expect anyone to grant me any importance or even care about my existence. In fact, I prefer if no one pays any attention to me whatsoever, my greatest desire in life is for people to leave me alone and allow me to live a life of being completely unimportant. Unfortunately, the government seems to be of the opinion that I am quite important and need to be subjected to myriads of laws and regulations to control my behavior.

Brian37 wrote:

I do not have to know how to build a car, to see when the driver (rethuglicans) wrapped the car around the tree, to know that the car is fucking totaled. Mitt is peddling the same fucking shit that got us in this mess in the first place. Been there, done that, no fucking way!

What you fail to see is that everyone in the car is intoxicated, you are so caught up in the "us vs. them" mentality. It doesn't matter whether the car wraps around the tree or if it drives off the cliff, they both end really badly. The best thing to do is to stop the car and prevent either one from driving anywhere.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

If that were true, you wouldn't have some of the highest unemployment and homeless rates in the world. Your middle class has been nearly extinguished, and your lower class is constantly desperate for basic needs items. 500 million cell phones and big screen tvs won't feed one person. The excess consumerism of the US has little to do with basic necessities, and everything to do with luxury. Luxury of the upper class, who makes way too much money and doesn't do anything with it. While even a fraction of the money the wealthy hoard would send waves of growth through the entire world if only your poor had access to it.

Have any evidence on that? Or are you just pulling shit out of your ass? Show me evidence of people starving in the US, show me evidence of a massive homeless problem. Show me evidence that a significant percentage of Americans are "desperate" for basic needs items.

"20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19)."

I'm currently living on not much more than 10,000 a year - I don't know how much longer I can stay off the streets myself.

A measly - by Romney's standards anyway - $300,000 would pay off all my bills and allow me to put off pulling Social Security until I am 65, allow me to stay in my house and off the streets, and keep me off of food stamps. Yeah, I know, it is all my fault my husband is disabled, all my fault I was laid off, all my fault I am over qualified, under qualified or just not quite right qualified in some fashion. I accept the blame for being a lazy, no good, liberal sucking at the public teat. <sigh>

Let's slice it, if you take $45,000,000 (+ / - a few cents), divide by 2 for one year's income = $22,500,000. Divide that by my measly $300,000 and you get 75 - Romney gets a share, so that is 74 not quite retired people who could be off the streets, off of food stamps and able to retire at a decent age.

Yeah, I'm assuming those people would all need as much as I do - some would need more, some less. But that is one man who could positively impact 74 other families for years.

If I were able to, I would improve my house, buy a newer car, and do a little shopping. How is that not a boost for the economy when multiplied by 74?

edit: why do I always find more errors even if I preview my post, after I post it?

Now CJ, you should know better than to use numbers with Beyond, he cherry picks as well as any theist quoting the bible. And yes, it is all your fault, get a second job you old bitty!

The numbers prove my point. 656,129 homeless people is nowhere near a high percentage compared to the world. It is 0.2% of our population was homeless for even a single day. Most of that 0.2% was homeless for only one or two days. Obviously that small portion of the population has little to no effect on our economy at large.

Then CJ suggests that we split Romney's two year income and divvy it up among 74 people ignoring the number of people that are no doubt being employed by that money now. Bain Capital started in 1984 with an initial investment of $37 million. Today Bain manages over $66 billion in investments, that $66 billion is keeping far more than 74 people employed. Even just the private equity branch that Romney managed supports far more people than that. http://www.baincapitalprivateequity.com/Investments/Default.aspx

Bain Capital directly hires over 400 people and the companies that they invest in hire tens of thousands more. Would things be better if instead of investing that $37 million the original partners of Bain just handed it out to people who produce nothing? That is insane. You do not improve an economy by giving money to people for doing nothing. Now, it might be the nice/ethical/necessary thing to help out those in extreme need, but it is a cost. Imagine you have a friend who is homeless, so you let them come live in your house for free. You pay for food, energy etc in exchange for nothing. Did your economy improve?Obviously not, you have a new cost to your micro economy that is contributing nothing in return. Expanding it out to the macro economy makes the burden smaller because it is distributed among more people, but as long as the people receiving money are not working they are a net cost to the economy.

Now if the person who moves in with you cleans your house, cooks and does most of the chores providing you with more time they are now being productive. You have essentially given them a job and now your economy might be improved. You have more time that you can devote as you choose, perhaps to go produce more yourself or just to enjoy life. Investing in people to become productive improves the economy, handing out money in exchange for nothing does not.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

The numbers prove my point. 656,129 homeless people is nowhere near a high percentage compared to the world. It is 0.2% of our population was homeless for even a single day. Most of that 0.2% was homeless for only one or two days. Obviously that small portion of the population has little to no effect on our economy at large.

I see many of the same people on the same street corner day after day. I am seriously just months from joining them. This is not an exercise in hypothetical situations to me.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then CJ suggests that we split Romney's two year income and divvy it up among 74 people ignoring the number of people that are no doubt being employed by that money now. Bain Capital started in 1984 with an initial investment of $37 million. Today Bain manages over $66 billion in investments, that $66 billion is keeping far more than 74 people employed. Even just the private equity branch that Romney managed supports far more people than that. http://www.baincapitalprivateequity.com/Investments/Default.aspx

Bain Capital directly hires over 400 people and the companies that they invest in hire tens of thousands more. Would things be better if instead of investing that $37 million the original partners of Bain just handed it out to people who produce nothing? That is insane. You do not improve an economy by giving money to people for doing nothing. Now, it might be the nice/ethical/necessary thing to help out those in extreme need, but it is a cost. Imagine you have a friend who is homeless, so you let them come live in your house for free. You pay for food, energy etc in exchange for nothing. Did your economy improve?Obviously not, you have a new cost to your micro economy that is contributing nothing in return. Expanding it out to the macro economy makes the burden smaller because it is distributed among more people, but as long as the people receiving money are not working they are a net cost to the economy.

Now if the person who moves in with you cleans your house, cooks and does most of the chores providing you with more time they are now being productive. You have essentially given them a job and now your economy might be improved. You have more time that you can devote as you choose, perhaps to go produce more yourself or just to enjoy life. Investing in people to become productive improves the economy, handing out money in exchange for nothing does not.

You missed the entire point. The millions of dollars that Romney gets from his investments each year is NOT employing people at Bain. Since he currently is not running a business that money is not salary, not perqs, not stock options. His investments may be employing people at other companies, but the money he receives from those investments is his own personal money.

He is employing some few people to assist with his lifestyle (the "nail ladies", e.g.) and lets him own some very nice things. My point was he could still live comfortably by my (or your) standards and have enough money that could assist people who could live off of that amount of money for YEARS. And the next year, he could assist another group of people who could live off of that money for YEARS.

Granted, not all people who are handed $300,000 US are going to carefully manage that money to last years. That was not my point, either. You may feel free to consider me properly humbled on this point.

I believe it is still valid to say, that putting that kind of money into the hands of people who HAVE to spend it, creates more demand than investing it would. Investing does create jobs and business growth - sometimes. I have posted links for you before, so this time you get to look them up on your own. Corporations in the US have more cash on hand now than at any time in history and they are not spending it, they are not hiring, they are not expanding their operations, THEY ARE SITTING ON IT. Why? Because there is no demand for their goods and services. Until demand increases, they will continue to sit on it.

To increase demand, lots of people need the money and the confidence in the continuation of having money in order for millions of people to freely spend money on goods and services. We live in a consumer economy which runs on the principle of people spending a lot of their money. Putting $300,000 in the hands of 74 poor, older, hard to hire workers would not make much of a dent in the current depressed economy. Putting it out there every year for 10 years would make a larger dent, but seriously not that much. My point was to illustrate just how far from that reality Romney lives.

The point of higher taxes from those who can afford to pay, and I would cheerfully pay taxes on my $300,000, is that it funds jobs. Those people with secure jobs working at some level of government spend money. Which funds more jobs. It is the "trickle up" theory of economics which I know you don't subscribe to. But it works. "Tinkle down" obviously does not work as it has been the dominant paradigm since the Reagan years and look at where the middle class is now.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

but I'm not the one saying the problem is due to hording and those that have not sharing with those that don't. Apparently, only when it benefits you is sharing the wealth a good thing.

The master of the strawman: EXC

Do you have no memory? You just told us that the problem with the economy is that the poor aren't getting any free money to spend and create demand.

Are you really this braindead? lol. How does this problem relate to my non-existent dictatorship of the world? You just bounce around saying so much stupid shit, you must actually think you can confuse your opposition into silence.

WTF, talk about strawmen. That is all you've ever have when anyone attacks your highly irrational and delusion view of how reality actually works.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

I believe it is still valid to say, that putting that kind of money into the hands of people who HAVE to spend it, creates more demand than investing it would. Investing does create jobs and business growth - sometimes. I have posted links for you before, so this time you get to look them up on your own. Corporations in the US have more cash on hand now than at any time in history and they are not spending it, they are not hiring, they are not expanding their operations, THEY ARE SITTING ON IT. Why? Because there is no demand for their goods and services. Until demand increases, they will continue to sit on it.

They sit on it because they can't find workers worth paying. Workers that would produce a product or service that would pay back their investment in hiring them. This country has for too long tolerated failed schools, letting students study whatever they please and letting welfare recipients have as many kids as they please.

With the baby boomers retiring, there is plenty of demand for health care services. But they can't find workers, so why should a capitalist build a hospital if there are no workers and the government regulates everything they do?

There is plenty of demand, just too many people with nothing to sell. Your solution is not to fix this problem but to reward the behaviors that lead to people with nothing to sell. Creating a massive moral hazard.

Reward failure and punish success, what kind of a solution is that?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

but I'm not the one saying the problem is due to hording and those that have not sharing with those that don't. Apparently, only when it benefits you is sharing the wealth a good thing.

The master of the strawman: EXC

Do you have no memory? You just told us that the problem with the economy is that the poor aren't getting any free money to spend and create demand.

Are you really this braindead? lol. How does this problem relate to my non-existent dictatorship of the world? You just bounce around saying so much stupid shit, you must actually think you can confuse your opposition into silence.

WTF, talk about strawmen. That is all you've ever have when anyone attacks your highly irrational and delusion view of how reality actually works.

You missed the entire point. The millions of dollars that Romney gets from his investments each year is NOT employing people at Bain. Since he currently is not running a business that money is not salary, not perqs, not stock options. His investments may be employing people at other companies, but the money he receives from those investments is his own personal money.

He is employing some few people to assist with his lifestyle (the "nail ladies", e.g.) and lets him own some very nice things. My point was he could still live comfortably by my (or your) standards and have enough money that could assist people who could live off of that amount of money for YEARS. And the next year, he could assist another group of people who could live off of that money for YEARS.

Granted, not all people who are handed $300,000 US are going to carefully manage that money to last years. That was not my point, either. You may feel free to consider me properly humbled on this point.

I believe it is still valid to say, that putting that kind of money into the hands of people who HAVE to spend it, creates more demand than investing it would. Investing does create jobs and business growth - sometimes. I have posted links for you before, so this time you get to look them up on your own. Corporations in the US have more cash on hand now than at any time in history and they are not spending it, they are not hiring, they are not expanding their operations, THEY ARE SITTING ON IT. Why? Because there is no demand for their goods and services. Until demand increases, they will continue to sit on it.

To increase demand, lots of people need the money and the confidence in the continuation of having money in order for millions of people to freely spend money on goods and services. We live in a consumer economy which runs on the principle of people spending a lot of their money. Putting $300,000 in the hands of 74 poor, older, hard to hire workers would not make much of a dent in the current depressed economy. Putting it out there every year for 10 years would make a larger dent, but seriously not that much. My point was to illustrate just how far from that reality Romney lives.

The point of higher taxes from those who can afford to pay, and I would cheerfully pay taxes on my $300,000, is that it funds jobs. Those people with secure jobs working at some level of government spend money. Which funds more jobs. It is the "trickle up" theory of economics which I know you don't subscribe to. But it works. "Tinkle down" obviously does not work as it has been the dominant paradigm since the Reagan years and look at where the middle class is now.

So? What do you think he is doing with it? For Romney right now the point is moot because all of his money is in blind trusts so he has no idea where it is and has no control over it right now. But rich people in general don't stuff money in their mattresses. I suspect that Romney's trust probably leans towards the aggressive side since that has always been his investment style. You are right that most of the wealthy are being very conservative right now. They are investing in "safe" investments like bonds or well established companies rather than growth. Why? You suggest because demand is low, I suggest you are dead wrong.

Demand is not all that low. Low by American standards compared to the credit high we experienced in the mid to late 90's, but there is still a market available to sell many products. People are still lining up to buy shoes, i-phones, playstations, new tvs etc.

So why are investors not investing aggressively? Because of the costs of labor. In 2014, the costs of employing someone are going to go up significantly for any company that does not currently offer health insurance- it will go up a little less for any company that does offer it but will probably have to provide a different policy. Businesses have to plan in advance, those that fail to save cash now will find that they cannot meet payroll. Not meeting payroll is a disaster for a company because employees tend to quit immediately when their checks bounce.

Where do you think money for unemployment comes from? Businesses have to pay that too and the amount they pay is based on the number of employees they hire and how much they pay the employees. The government has been consistently extending benefits and that cost has been passed along even to businesses that have not had any unemployment claims. You have to have cash on hand to cover those expenses too.

Then look at our monetary policy. It does not take an economist to realize that we are experiencing inflation on raw materials and that said inflation is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. When you are running a business you have to have cash on hand to cover purchasing inventory and whatever consumables your business uses. Since the price of those are going up and can be expected to go up further it is important to make sure you have enough cash on hand.

Lending from banks remains tight, and with the passage of Frank-Dodd it will become tighter, so even if you have good credit it is wise to keep cash on hand.

Now, eventually most of these extra costs will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. In many areas they already are, have you been to McDonalds recently? However, raising prices is always dangerous and can lead to a loss of sales, especially if you are the first company in your industry to do so. By keeping a large reserve of cash on hand, companies can slowly raise prices and live on reduced profits or even small losses as consumers slowly adapt to the higher prices.

It simply makes financial sense right now to be cautious and build up cash reserves. Until you change the variables or give business time to adapt to them, that isn't going to change. However, once it does and investment starts again, demand will come back quickly.

If your trickle up theory works, why was the stimulus such an abysmal failure? Why hasn't the economy improved despite the government handing out more benefits than ever to the poor and the unemployed? Our government has spent trillions of dollars, yet our economy is limping along at best. We can't continue the insane idea that all we have to do to improve the economy is consume, consume, consume. You will never get wealthier by consuming, you get wealthier by producing. That is true in your personal finances and for the country's finances as well.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

I believe it is still valid to say, that putting that kind of money into the hands of people who HAVE to spend it, creates more demand than investing it would. Investing does create jobs and business growth - sometimes. I have posted links for you before, so this time you get to look them up on your own. Corporations in the US have more cash on hand now than at any time in history and they are not spending it, they are not hiring, they are not expanding their operations, THEY ARE SITTING ON IT. Why? Because there is no demand for their goods and services. Until demand increases, they will continue to sit on it.

They sit on it because they can't find workers worth paying. Workers that would produce a product or service that would pay back their investment in hiring them. This country has for too long tolerated failed schools, letting students study whatever they please and letting welfare recipients have as many kids as they please.

Hint - I am incapable of having children. And I am not interested in having more at my age. And I am very unwillingly on welfare because I like to eat. I would like to be able to support myself.

You have not applied for a technical job lately, have you? I will speak about IT jobs since I am most familiar with them, and then I will talk about health care a little.

When you apply for a technical job, the hiring manager has a list of what they want you to be proficient in. Not a "nodding acquaintance." The fact that it would take a professional person who has worked with similar systems for many years about a week to be good at whatever and about 2 weeks to be an expert, is unimportant. So if you are not willing to lie, you will not get the job. Example: I have supported Microsoft SQL, have done extensive programming in Access, but I have not supported Oracle. It is a relational database which is essentially the unchanged since relational databases were first conceived of in the late 1970s. They are all the same on the back end. What is different is the user interface. Not important. If you don't have 5+ years supporting Oracle databases for this position, your resume hits the round file.

I have no quibble with the hiring manager. They need a person with that experience and they want someone who can "hit the ground running." But it won't be me they want and I don't bother applying for jobs like that because I refuse to lie. It has nothing to do with my education and all to do with my experience.

EXC wrote:

With the baby boomers retiring, there is plenty of demand for health care services. But they can't find workers, so why should a capitalist build a hospital if there are no workers and the government regulates everything they do?

There is plenty of demand, just too many people with nothing to sell. Your solution is not to fix this problem but to reward the behaviors that lead to people with nothing to sell. Creating a massive moral hazard.

Reward failure and punish success, what kind of a solution is that?

There is a reason I am not in health care and have no intention of getting into health care. I might be able to do IT support in a health care environment. I have applied at local hospitals and insurance agencies for such positions, but don't have one yet. I am not going to be a nurse or doctor or orderly because I faint at the sight of blood. I have no control over this reaction.

As for qualifications, health care is a bad as IT when it comes to job descriptions. You need to have experience in a particular department - emergency, geriatrics, surgery, whatever - and you need to have experience with the particular brand of equipment and with the particular software the institution/business/clinic uses to track patients, lab results, treatments, and expenditures. Seriously, if you don't have experience with the particular software, they will look for someone else. No school teaches health care students on every brand of health care management software available. Why would expect them to do so?

And if you think living on welfare is a reward, get real. Try it sometime. Limit your expenditures to what I have to live on - $122 ($103 after taxes) a week unemployment and $55 a month in food stamps. Reward??????

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Yes highly competitive. They can't waist time and money training someone. Just a fact of life of living in a highly competitive world. If we have a competitive world, society must either eliminate the causes of highly competitive society or just accept that there will be winners and losers. The other thing is people will often stay put if they can get unemployment and welfare rather than move for a job.

cj wrote:

When you apply for a technical job, the hiring manager has a list of what they want you to be proficient in. Not a "nodding acquaintance." The fact that it would take a professional person who has worked with similar systems for many years about a week to be good at whatever and about 2 weeks to be an expert, is unimportant. So if you are not willing to lie, you will not get the job. Example: I have supported Microsoft SQL, have done extensive programming in Access, but I have not supported Oracle. It is a relational database which is essentially the unchanged since relational databases were first conceived of in the late 1970s. They are all the same on the back end. What is different is the user interface. Not important. If you don't have 5+ years supporting Oracle databases for this position, your resume hits the round file.

So then this is an affect of two things, one is population pressures, too many people looking for too few available jobs. The other is an education system that does not train people quickly and efficiently. How does 'spreading the wealth' around fix either of these problems?

cj wrote:

There is a reason I am not in health care and have no intention of getting into health care. I might be able to do IT support in a health care environment. I have applied at local hospitals and insurance agencies for such positions, but don't have one yet. I am not going to be a nurse or doctor or orderly because I faint at the sight of blood. I have no control over this reaction.

The most difficult jobs has the most people that can't or won't do them. So how does 'speading the wealth' around remedy this?

cj wrote:

And if you think living on welfare is a reward, get real. Try it sometime. Limit your expenditures to what I have to live on - $122 ($103 after taxes) a week unemployment and $55 a month in food stamps. Reward??????

Yes, a reward for votes. The reward is you get to live, therefore you can push lever next to D. That's a good enough reward for the politicians.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Beyond Saving, YOU are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about!

As CEO and Chairman of the board Romney is LEGALLY responsible for all actions of his company including all the outsourcing they did to foreign nations! It doesn't matter if he wasn't a day to day manager anymore since he was the head man who was still the legal head of the entire company so HE is responsible for all the outsourcing that occured when he was CEO!

Beyond Saving, YOU are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about!

As CEO and Chairman of the board Romney is LEGALLY responsible for all actions of his company including all the outsourcing they did to foreign nations! It doesn't matter if he wasn't a day to day manager anymore since he was the head man who was still the legal head of the entire company so HE is responsible for all the outsourcing that occured when he was CEO!

Only precisely in the same sense that Obama is responsible for "Fast & Furious" in that he did have the power to fire the people doing the work at any time. It isn't illegal to outsource, so in what sense could he be "legally responsible" for outsourcing since it is not a legal issue? What I am saying is the IF something illegal was done with an investment, Romney would not have been personally responsible for any SEC fines, the entire point of listing the fund managers separately is precisely so that they are the ones the SEC pursues if clients funds are handled inappropriately. And I do know what I am talking about since I used to be licensed to sell securities through the SEC, and yes, even though I didn't own the company it was very clear that if I did something questionable with a clients money it was my head on the pike, not my supervisor or the owner of the company. The point is moot anyway, because as far as I can tell no one is accusing anyone at Bain of doing anything illegal or in violation of SEC regulations.

The bottom line is that he was not the person making the investment decisions because he delegated those decisions to other people. If you want to criticize him for the people he chose to delegate, fine- I still think it is a loser politically- but it doesn't catch him in a lie because so far as the paper trail shows he was not active in making decisions, which is all he ever claimed.

Besides, Bain made several investments in companies that outsource long before 1999, so why does it matter whether he worked 1999-2002 if your goal is to criticize him for outsourcing as if outsourcing is a bad thing? Again, I don't see the point of making a big deal over which years Romney worked at Bain because as near as I can tell Bain's investment strategy did not change substantially between when he was active and when he wasn't. You have 1984-1999 to attack him, what difference does 3 years make? The whole thing smacks of nothing but a fake political "gotcha" that is about as relevant as the argument of Obama's birth certificate, and the fools making a big deal over it should be looked at as having the same lack of intelligence as the fools who still claim Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama supporters would be far better off attacking Romney's very public flip flops and lies about his position on abortion, government healthcare, the bailouts, taxes etc. Romney has obviously switched positions quickly simply to garner votes and there are dozens of public soundbites that directly conflict each other which could make a convenient ad.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

When everything you say is twisted to suit his agenda, it just pisses me off. "Amusing" is not the word I would choose.

Well I suppose familiarity of ignorant statements breeds contempt, allowing for amusement to replace anger. EXC used to annoy me, but that was before I accepted the fact that he has too many screws loose to take seriously on any political or economic discussion. He doesn't even understand the basic terms or definitions of said discussions, and has proven so with every 2nd or 3rd post he's posted since he joined here. So when I respond to him, it's not to actually talk to him. Such is pointless. Instead I speak to the audience, like when talking with any other evangelist.

When everything you say is twisted to suit his agenda, it just pisses me off. "Amusing" is not the word I would choose.

Well I suppose familiarity of ignorant statements breeds contempt, allowing for amusement to replace anger. EXC used to annoy me, but that was before I accepted the fact that he has too many screws loose to take seriously on any political or economic discussion. He doesn't even understand the basic terms or definitions of said discussions, and has proven so with every 2nd or 3rd post he's posted since he joined here. So when I respond to him, it's not to actually talk to him. Such is pointless. Instead I speak to the audience, like when talking with any other evangelist.

So we'll just take it on faith that you are correct since you don't want to bother explaining exactly what you disagree with and present any facts or scientific evidence to back it up. Just attack the person and not the argument I present.

The fact is you support the conditions that lead to economic misery, child abuse and neglect. You live in a world of self-delusion where all poverty is caused by rich people like Romney stealing it and then hording it because they are selfish. Then you make yourself into some kind of compassionate hero because you are so generous with other people's money. The obvious fact to anyone living in the real world is that people are poor because they don't have anything to sell, not because of some evil conspiracy of the 1%.

But your answer is to steal from anyone who has achieved success, regardless of how they achieved it. Obviously it is driven by your own jealousy of success. Your politics is nothing more than victimization and then using this as an excuse to steal. The politics of a loser, you can't achieve success on your own so you must steal it from anyone that has. But just like with religion, you don't even really believe your own propaganda. It's just an exercise in self-aggrandizing and narcissism.

Adios loser.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen